The chairman of the House Social Affairs Committee Edwin Vassallo has told the House that with the introduction of the two select committees - one to discuss the drafting of a law on assisted procreation and another to make recommendations on the codification of the Laws of Malta - Parliament would function better as it would be closer to the people. Democracy would thus be strengthened.
Speaking during the discussion on the motions presented by Leader of the House Tonio Borg, Mr Vassallo said one had to keep in mind that the public did not attend House sittings but through such committee could express their ideas and give their contribution to the respective committee's workings.
He expressed his doubts on Dr Anġlu Farrugia's (PL) proposals that the Speaker should chair the two select committees. Using the same rationale, he asked why should the Speaker not chair the Foreign Affairs Committee as well as the Social Affairs Committee. The opposition should give more specific reasons why the Speaker should chair these two committees.
Given the complexity of the subject, the setting up of these select committees was the best thing that the government could have done. Mr Vassallo said that there should be wide-ranging consultation, including MPs. Moral and ethical issues should also be taken into consideration during the consultation process, as they involved human dignity.
While Malta had lagged behind by not legislating earlier on assisted procreation, it should now look at advanced countries to learn from their experiences and not to make the same mistakes that they had made. Meanwhile, he agreed that such select committees should be manned by three MPs each for better functionality.
Concluding, Mr Vassallo augured that the members of the new select committees would give their contribution with enthusiasm.
Labour MP Anthony Zammit said that select committees needed to be chaired by the Speaker of the House or his deputy. It was important to regulate on assisted procreation. One had to discuss whether to establish a regulatory authority or a law which would have to be amended according to scientific developments.
He praised the Puli report which he said had laid the foundation for a parliamentary debate on the issue. Every member interested in the issue should give due consideration to the bio-ethics report. The three months' time allotted for consultation on drafting a Bill and considering evidence by medical and morality experts was not enough.
Joe Mizzi (PL) said that as party whip for the last 20 years he had done his utmost to see that democracy was strengthened in Parliament. When Dr Gonzi served as Speaker of the House he had cooperated for Parliament to function better.
Today, Mr Mizzi added, he was disappointed because under Dr Gonzi as Prime Minister, Parliament was losing its rights. The select committees being discussed had to be chaired by the Speaker.
It was ironic that a few months ago the government had denied the opposition's proposal for setting up of a select committee on the issue of irregular immigration. In the House Business Committee the government had said that there was no such need because there were enough set-ups to oversee the situation. The government was now setting up two other select committees because this suited it. Mr Mizzi accused the government of hypocrisy.
He referred to the Standing Orders relating to question time. The government was adopting political gimmicks to avoid replying to supplementary questions put by the opposition. There had been supplementary questions which indicated cases of corruption and abuses such as on the ADT, VAT and MMA issues. The opposition was doing its duty. The government was not credible. There were ministers who replied that they would reply to opposition parliamentary questions in subsequent sittings. This showed that parliamentary rights and democracy were being eroded.
Mr Mizzi claimed that as Prime Minister Dr Gonzi was treating Parliament in a manner totally contrary to how he had acted as Speaker of the House.
He referred to a breach-of-privilege complaint raised against him during the previous legislature, when he had been left in the dark for two whole years and the case had not even been discussed. Despite this, a government MP had declared him guilty.
The Labour Whip claimed that the Constitution was under threat. He accused the government of presenting a counter-motion on the St John's Co-Cathedral issue in breach of the Constitution. Regulations of the House could be revoked only in case of war or in the supreme national interest. Revoking regulations for any other reason was contrary to the Constitution. The right of each member to move a private motion in the House could now only be discussed if it obtained the Prime Minister's blessing.
Mr Mizzi mentioned instances where he had been threatened, his house attacked and relatives suffered repercussions, but little action had been taken. A policeman who had been found guilty by the courts of failing in his duty had been reinstated after pressure had been exerted by the Nationalist government on the Public Service Commission. He specified that neither the Home Affairs Minister nor the Police Commissioner had anything to do with this pressure.
Whenever the opposition gave indications of corruption the government insisted on details instead of investigating. He was convinced that in the ADT, corruption on car number-plates was still rampant. He did not know who was responsible for this, but he was sure it was happening.
It was time that the public understood what was truly happening in Parliament, an institution that had been developed with the help of the Prime Minister when he was Speaker and was now being demolished by the same Prime Minister. With its actions the government was furthering corruption and hypocrisy, concluded Mr Mizzi.
Josè Herrera (PL) said he would focus on the committee for the codification and amendment of laws, noting that some years ago he had made a similar proposal. Malta did not have a watchdog on the work of the courts and decisions handed down which included the interpretation of laws. Court judgments interpreted both ordinary laws and constitutional issues, and at times courts tried to fill in legal lacunae or declared laws to be unconstitutional.
Dr Herrera emphasised that this required a committee whose remit would be to review these developments and to consider the radical work that had been done by Parliament in enacting new laws and amendments.
This practice had also given rise to a situation wherein new special laws had been enacted which included cross-referencing, thereby creating a state of confusion. He said that the work of the select committee would be an ongoing process and that its work would be monumental, making it one of the most important committees of the House.
Contrary to the committee on assisted procreation, the committee on codification and amendment of laws should not have a time limit but ought to be a permanent committee. It was good that the committee would have to report regularly to the House for the latter to adjourn national laws. He also commended the facility given to the committee to seek the advice of experts and of the Attorney General.
The concept of House committees was beneficial, and he noted that foreign jurisdictions also had a Justice Committee to supervise the administration. Dr Herrera spoke of the 300-plus cases presented before the tribunal for the investigation of corruption, whereby there had not been a single case where the government or its agents were found responsible. This was a scandal which indicated that the tribunal was not effective and unacceptable. A committee similar to the Justice Committee in other Parliaments would better address these issues.
He noted that plenary sessions were to be retained as the rule and not the exception so as to produce lively debate, even though Parliament required assistance from its committees.
Dr Herrera recalled the British report on the situation of Maltese national laws in the 1800s, from which one could only conclude that there was confusion in legislation. It was consequent to this that the judicial system as one knew it had started developing. This work would also be carried out by the select committee being discussed, which was to continue in the footsteps of former Chief Justice Sir Adrian Dingli.
Legal substance could be found in Maltese codes, such as the Civil Code, the Commercial Code and the Criminal Code. This was contrary to the position in the UK whereby although there was positive law, reliance was on common law. Yet in the last years Malta too had experienced the stark development of positive law which included extensive cross-referencing, concluded Dr Herrera.
The debate continues.